Will Burnham make Kirk looks so ordinary in accomplishment?

This problem often happen in a series that happen in the same universe as the previous another TV series. I just realized this when I watched the latest Gundam Franchisee Show, MS Gundam Thunderbolt that happen at the same timeline and universe as the first Gundam series ever.

Now, what make me realized was that in the previous Gundam UC (Universal Century) universe, the first Gundam Pilot (Amuro Ray) was a legend. His enemy call him "The White Demon", and his Gundam (his mecha) become so famous so it frightened many enemies. Even in previous following series that happen after the timeline fast forward considered Amuro as a legend. But because Bandai produced many shows that happen at the same timeline (the same One Year War) and create many new awesome characters and Gundam, Amuro Ray become so ordinary if we compare him to another Gundam Pilot. For example, Io Flemming from the new Thunderbolt series. So the problem is, if there are another Ace Pilots who exceed Amuro (the first MC), then how Amuro become a legend?

Now, we go into TNG era Star Trek. We know that Picard was the hero of the first TNG era. But when Sisko appeared, Picard was looks so ordinary compared to the later. Look at Sisko. His accomplishment can be considered as legendary in the universe. He was a war hero. Compared to him, Picard was nothing. So basically Sisko was over shadow Picard as the main character in the TNG era Star Trek.

Now, let back to the 23rd Century. We all know that James T Kirk was a legend in the Star Trek universe. We can see this from what Sisko did in DS9 series (where he was so amazed when he shake hand with Kirk). So now we have Burnham. She is in the middle of a heated conflict between Federation and Klingon. Because both characters (Kirk and Burnham) happened at the same universe and timeline, what if Burnham does something bigger than what Kirk accomplished in TOS? Wouldn't it make Michael Burnham the legend instead of Kirk?

Look at her, there was no mention about Michael Burnham in TOS, TNG, DS9, and even Voyager. (I know she's a new character that created recently). So what will happen if she accomplished something extra ordinary that make Kirk look like just another starship captain?

 

There can be more than one legend...

 

No.

 

Io and the rest of Thunderbolt make up a tiny portion of the war in a remote location and is largely only known to those who take direct part of it. Amuro basically ended the war and went up against the big time players... There is a pretty big difference there.

Picard is legendary for his accomplishments in exploration and discovery, diplomacy, the Picard maneuver, and saving Earth like twelve times. Sisko became legendary as a war hero after that. Legendary status of captains is not mutually exclusive.

This is not a 'problem' in either case.

 

Um No.

Just watch this:

 

No, as others have said you can have more than one hero. Starfleet likely has hundreds of ships and tens of thousand personal. Having more make a name for themselves does not diminish something someone else did.

 

No I think that they can each be heroes in their own rights. One doesn't take away from the other by their deeds and actions

 

I Wonder how much longer the computer would have gone on for if Mr. Cogley hadn't told it to stop?

 

The universe is a big place. Very diverse. It'll be fine.

 

TBH, I preferred it in the original series when the Enterprise was just another ship in the fleet and Kirk was just another starship captain. Both were special because they were who we were following and invested in. But in universe, they were just doing their jobs.

It was the movies and the spinoffs that made him into a legendary captain.

However, even TNG in the first season didn't make a big deal of Kirk. In "The Naked Now," Riker didn't even seem toe recall the original ship until Data made an off-handed comment that tripped his memory. And Picard didn't seem to really recognize Kirk's name when he read it off the screen.

 

No wonder they never talked about Archer and the NX - 01. They probably forgot about them completely. Except during "The Pegasus," of course.

 

For me, no one will replace or be better than the original TV Kirk. But not necessarily either movie Kirk.

 

By the time of TOS Kirk is already a highly decorated officer and recognized as the greatest military commander in Starfleet. Makes one wonder what the hell he was doing before the 5 year mission.

... I don't think we were watching the same show. TOS went out of its way to show special Kirk was, as the clip posted earlier and my above reference to whom gods destroy make clear. How many times out of 79 episodes did we see him pulling out his medals/discussing his accomplished past?

 

Fundamentally, it seems likely that Burnham will be disadvantaged against Kirk by the format of modern storytelling. Kirk's adventures were wholly episodic, meaning he performed 78 separate heroic acts on the small screen. Burnham may well waste 78 episodes performing just two heroic acts at most.

Beyond that, it should be noted that nobody thinks highly of war heroes in Trek. They're either insane or at least an embarrassment and, if fortunate, removed from the society one way or another.

But it should also never be forgotten that, in no uncertain terms, Kirk is a nobody. Our TNG heroes quite blatantly go "Kirk who?" when the 23rd century adventurer is first brought up in "The Naked Now"... The obvious conclusion is that in Starfleet, everybody is a hero, and saving the Earth thrice, the Federation twice and the entire universe once is the mark of a slacker.

Timo Saloniemi

 

You are using one reference in the third episode of TNG ever made before the show had any idea what it was doing and ignoring every other reference in all the other series, which do present Kirk as a legendary figure. From all the references to his heroics in TOS, to how the Klingons know him as a great warrior in the films, to Sisko risking the space time continuum to shake his hand and the temporal cop saying he would have done the same thing given the chance, to icheb on voyager writing a 35 page essay on him as part of Starfleet history class.

 

People only get remembered for being war heroes?
Ghandi, Galileo, Einstein, the Wright Brothers, Marie Curie, The Beatles, Darwin, Columbus, Marco Polo and a few others beg to differ.

 

Not really.

- The only Klingons to remember Kirk are the old fools who met him personally.

- Picard does not have to confront any of Kirk's achievements during his seven years of televised adventures, and when meeting with Kirk afterwards and recognizing him by looks, he has for unrelated reasons just reviewed records on the incident where Kirk died. In the meeting, Picard has no words of praise to say about Kirk, even if the other captain self-boasts.

- Sisko has nothing to say about Kirk for five years. When he meets the man in the past, this is after his crew has done careful research establishing Kirk's significance to the crisis at hand - but nothing about overall greatness or significance. And again, the only one to attribute significance to Kirk is one of 'em old fools who lived back when he did. She more or less badgers Sisko into getting an autograph.

- Janeway gets prompted for recognizing Kirk and one of his adventures, too, in a pseudo-timetravel story. And again, one of her crew actually is an old codger who saw it firsthand.

However, we can credit Kirk with at least one thing of actual note: he held the record on First Contacts for a century until Janeway yanked it from him, as per "Friendship One".

Timo Saloniemi

 

Yes, really. You are posting head canon theories to explain away actual on screen references to Kirk's fame and ongoing respect on the basis of references from the third episode of TNG when nobody on the writing team had any idea what they were doing with the franchise.

You even reference two other examples directly refuting your argument in your response - Voyagers Flashback and Friendship One.

Hell, the last 24th century prime character we have on screen is a blue collar Romulan miner stating that the Captain Kirk from his universe was considered a great man.

 

You seem to be deliberately misunderstanding the evidence. In the two examples you quote, "Flashback" and "Friendship One", Kirk between them has but one claim to fame - the record on First Contacts. In "Flashback", Kirk is just the person who happened to motivate Captain Sulu to act in a way that touched upon Tuvok's life. There's nothing "famous" about Kirk there, just a mention of an incident involving him.

TNG never refutes its initial assertion that Kirk has been forgotten. Picard remembers Sarek and Spock, because of personal contacts. Nobody remembers Kirk. Why try and claim otherwise?

DS9 has one episode actually featuring Kirk in flesh. This is the only time anybody in Starfleet mentions Kirk in DS9, and Dax is entitled to being a fanboy (or, currently, -girl) exactly because she's a fellow relic.

Nobody ever has any idea what they are doing with the franchise - it keeps evolving and trying to reinvent itself. And although it never has the guts to forget Kirk, it does allow its characters to forget him.

So what we are left with is deciding whether there's a contradiction between being a great man and being a nobody. Why should there be? Starfleet could be chock full of great men, and indeed the very concept of spinoffs is based on the assumption. We just need suitable distance to find out whether Picard or Sisko or Janeway or Burnham will make a mark in history.

(Archer had it easy, there being so little competition back then - and he still lost, getting no recognition even one measly century later. But that's a reverse artifact, as Daniel reveals Archer in fact is remembered, albeit offscreen.)

Timo Saloniemi